Disposed

Navnath Kisan Hatagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/1003/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respontents directed to pay compensation awarded by SLAO to petitioner within six months. Leave granted to petitioner to pursue non-referral of application under Section 64 of LFRR Act, 2013. Writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay compensation amount within six months; leave to take appropriate steps regarding non-referral of application under Section 64 of LFRR Act, 2013.

Navnath Kisan Hatagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

971 Writ Petition No.1003 Of 2021

¶4

Navnath Kisan Hatagale

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr Bhagwan R. Sable, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr A.R. Kale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶10

 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
 AND
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 22-09-2021

¶12

PER COURT : -

¶13

1. One of the grievance of the petitioner is that the amount as per

¶14

the Award passed by the SLAO is not paid to the petitioner. The
affidavit is filed by the Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD stating that the
efforts are being made to get the funds and once the funds are
received, the compensation amount would be paid to the petitioner.

¶15

2.The respondents shall pay the compensation amount to the
petitioner as per the Award passed, preferably within six months.

¶16

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has moved application under Section 64 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The same was required to

¶17

Gajanan

¶18

.. 2 ..

¶19

be referred to the competent authority, but it is not referred.

¶20

4. The petitioner may take appropriate steps against the same.

¶21

5. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶22

of. No costs.

¶23

[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

Gajanan

Navnath Kisan Hatagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navnath Kisan Hatagale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant Shankarrao Dhirdikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ranjana Prakash Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bibhishan Pandharinath Bhairat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prawara Pradeep Kulkarni Vs National Health Mission Thr Secretary and Others

Dilip Govind Gawate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vub Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Officer Ramesh Budha More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others